Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Murali Shankar, J
11.Prema – Appellant
Versus
1.Dakshinamurthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. plaintiffs allege medical negligence in delivery. (Para 4) |
| 3. defendants deny negligence and liability. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. high court jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. defendants argue no negligence; cite bolam test. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. state hospitals must ensure doctors for maternal care. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. institutional lapse from absent doctor and unattended patient. (Para 22 , 23) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
1.These Second Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.124 of 2018, dated 12.01.2022, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree, passed in O.S.No.166 of 2012, dated 26.02.2016, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.
2. The appellants in S.A.(MD)No.496 of 2022 are the defendants 1 and 2 and the appellant in S.A.(MD)No.737 of 2024 is the fourth defendant. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2012, before the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of wife of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
